DOCSLIB.ORG

Subprime Lending Lessons from the Ameriquest Settlement Joseph E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Subprime Lending Lessons from the Ameriquest Settlement Joseph E Volume 23, Number 5 February 2007 Subprime Lending Lessons from the Ameriquest Settlement Joseph E. Mayk Joseph E. Mayk is of counsel s has been widely reported, early last above the comparable treasury security yield). in the consumer financial year Ameriquest Mortgage Company The oral disclosures, which are in addition to services/retail banking practice and related companies settled a multi- already existing Truth-in-Lending Act (TILA), group of Blank Rome LLP. A state investigation over certain allegedly decep- Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), He is resident in the firm’s Philadelphia office, where his tive consumer lending practices. The settlement and other mandated written disclosures, cover practice focuses on advising included $295 million to repay borrowers with the key loan terms, such as the repayment term, lenders on all aspects of loans originated between January 1, 1999 and interest rate, monthly payment, existence of a pre- consumer finance regulato- December 31, 2005, plus $30 million to pay for payment penalty, whether amounts are escrowed, ry compliance. Mr. Mayk 1 can be reached at mayk@ the investigations. amount and effect of any discount points, and blankrome.com. Like Household Finance Corporation’s nearly adjustable rate disclosures for adjustable rate mort- $500 million settlement with the states in 2002, and gages (ARMs). If the application is not submitted to a lesser extent Citigroup’s $215 million and $70 orally, the substance of the oral disclosures must be million settlements with the Federal Trade Com- provided in writing within three days of receiving mission and the Federal Reserve Board (which the application. did not explicitly require as many changes to Significantly, instead of imposing general require- Citi’s lending practices), the Ameriquest settlement ments, the settlement agreement provides scripted represents another mile marker in an emerging language for these disclosures, which Ameriquest “best practices” road map for subprime consumer must use, or alternative language that is substan- mortgage lending. As such, lenders are well advised tially similar. Over the years, lenders have had to compare the terms of this settlement to their different views on the utility of scripted oral current practices. The purpose of this article is to disclosures. While some have found them to be highlight certain terms of the settlement and sug- impractical or too restrictive to the sales process, gest issues that lenders may wish to consider with other lenders have seen the value in oral scripts respect to their own consumer mortgage lending (especially when coupled with listening programs) programs. Keep in mind, however, that no new in helping to ensure consistency in the sales proc- requirement imposed on Ameriquest is required ess, as well as in reducing the risk of deceptive of any other lender (at least not yet). sales claims. In addition to the specific scripted oral disclo- ORAL DISCLOSURES sures, the settlement agreement contains a number The settlement requires a number of oral disclo- of negative covenants that prohibit Ameriquest sures for “Non-Prime loans” (defined as first lien employees from making potentially misleading loans where the APR is equal to or greater than statements. For instance, Ameriquest cannot rep- two and a half percentage points above the yield resent that its interest rate or terms are “better,” for a treasury security of comparable maturity “lower” than, or “competitive” with those of and, for junior lien loans, five percentage points other lenders, unless the representations are, in Subprime Lending Lessons from the Ameriquest Settlement fact, true. The Household settlement also contained a number a decrease in the loan amount greater than one percent; the of provisions prohibiting Household from making misleading addition of a prepayment penalty; or a change from a fixed rate representations. to an adjustable rate loan. These are obviously prudent policies for lenders to have in The concept of redisclosure is currently the subject of place. While scripts can be very helpful in protecting a lender much discussion in the mortgage industry. For instance, it from claims of misrepresentation, it is also important that loan is expected that any RESPA reform on the horizon will officers and others understand that statements should not be deal with redisclosure of the good faith estimate if there is a made which contradict, undermine or obscure the more spe- change in the terms beyond some sort of tolerance. cific disclosures. The concept of redisclosure here seems to make sense, espe- cially for any lender that chooses to provide an early disclosure WRITTEN DISCLOSURE OF of material loan terms that is not otherwise required by state or LOAN TERMS federal law. For instance, if a lender provides an early disclosure The settlement also requires Ameriquest to provide consum- of material loan terms, it would not want to face a bait and ers with a single page disclosure of the key loan terms within switch claim if the final loan terms are different. Timely redis- three days after obtaining loan pricing information (but in closure helps protect against such a claim. no event later than three days after when an appraisal or loan documents have been ordered). This requirement applies to all LOAN PRICING loans, and not just non-prime loans. The form of written dis- Ameriquest must use a pricing model for loans that is designed closure contains information similar to that which Ameriquest to produce (before application of any price exception) the same is required to provide in the oral disclosures for non-prime interest rate and number of discount points for all potential loans. Household was also required by the regulators to imple- borrowers with the same credit risk characteristics and who are ment a one page summary of key loan terms. the same with respect to any other material characteristics (e.g., A clear, concise, written disclosure of key loan terms is loan-to-value ratio, type of property, etc). This part of the settle- another tool that can help protect lenders from deceptive sales ment commits Ameriquest to maintaining a policy that it vol- claims. Disclosures required by RESPA and TILA have been in untarily instituted in 2003 as part of a “best practices” initiative. effect for many years now, but are often insufficient to protect A “price exception” is defined as the offering of a rate that is a lender from misrepresentation claims even when properly lower than the rate for which the borrower otherwise qualifies given. In fact, there is a wide consensus among both lenders under the pricing model. To make sure that the use of price and consumer advocates that the current federal disclosures are exceptions is not undermining the pricing model, the settle- unnecessarily confusing to consumers. Of course, any lender ment provides that if in any ninety day period the number of considering a simplified summary disclosure must ensure that borrowers receiving a price exception exceeds thirty percent of it is consistent with the disclosures required by state and federal the loans originated during that period, there will be a rebuttable law. presumption that Ameriquest has violated this part of the settle- ment agreement. However, the term “price exception” does not REDISCLOSURE include a price reduction that is necessary to keep a loan below Another key component of the settlement is a requirement to federal and state “high cost” loan triggers or price reductions in give a new written summary disclosure if there is a “material certain other limited circumstances. Thus, loans where pricing is change” in the loan terms. The new disclosure must be mailed reduced in such cases do not count against the 30 percent cap. no less than six days before closing or otherwise delivered or This part of the settlement, along with restrictions on employee made available to the consumer at least three days before clos- compensation discussed below, would seem to eliminate the use ing for a non-prime refinance loan or one day before closing of overage pricing by Ameriquest. This is just the latest sign that for all other loans. overage compensation programs are receiving increased scru- A change is “material” if there is an increase in the interest tiny from regulators and the secondary market. New York, for rate of 30 basis points or more, or any increase in discount example, has for the past few years required lenders to describe points other than as a result of the trading of discount points their policy on overages.2 The secondary market has also gotten for an interest rate reduction that is affirmatively requested by more active in regulating the amount of points that can be the borrower; any increase in the repayment term of the loan; charged in a transaction For instance, Fannie Mae and Freddie 2 REAL ESTATE FINANCE FEBRUARY 2007 Subprime Lending Lessons from the Ameriquest Settlement Mac generally limit the total points and fees to 5 percent of financial interest in the loan being closed other than payment the loan amount. Many private investors impose similar restric- of standard settlement fees. tions. The public scrutiny of pricing data now captured by Each independent loan closer must be given written instruc- HMDA has further highlighted the potential fair lending risk. tions on the closing and must provide a written report to Lenders engaged in discretionary pricing need to seriously Ameriquest senior management if the loan closer discovers consider the benefits and risks of continuing to do so, and, at any unfair, deceptive, misleading or unlawful behavior by any a minimum, should put policies in place (such as back-end Ameriquest employee in connection with the loan. Further, closed loan reviews and front-end listening) to minimize the Ameriquest employees are only permitted to attend non-prime risk that pricing is creating a fair lending issue.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division
    Case: 1:05-cv-07097 Document #: 701 Filed: 04/23/07 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:<pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN RE AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE CO. ) MORTGAGE LENDING PRACTICES ) LITIGATION ) ) ) No. 05-CV-7097 RE CONSOLIDATED CLASS ACTION ) COMPLAINT ) FOR CLAIMS OF NON-BORROWERS ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Court Judge: Defendants Ameriquest Mortgage Company; AMC Mortgage Services, Inc.; Town & Country Credit Corporation; Ameriquest Capital Corporation; Town & Country Title Services, Inc.; and Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc. move to dismiss the borrower plaintiffs’ Consolidated Class Action Complaint in its entirety. Defendants contend that: a) plaintiffs have failed to show through “clear and specific allegations of fact” that they have standing to bring this suit; b) plaintiffs’ first cause of action, for a declaration as to their rescission rights under the Truth-in-Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1601, et seq., fails because TILA rescission is not susceptible to class relief; c) plaintiffs’ second and third causes of action fail because neither the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691, et seq., nor the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681, et seq. require notices of “adverse actions” in this case; and d) plaintiffs’ twelfth cause of action fails because California’s Civil Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq. does not apply to the residential mortgage loans here. 1 Case: 1:05-cv-07097 Document #: 701 Filed: 04/23/07 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:<pageID> In the alternative, defendants move for a more definite statement of plaintiffs’ claims.
    [Show full text]
  • Representative Consumer Finance Class Action Matters1
    Representative Consumer Finance Class Action Matters1 A. Auto Finance ........................................................................................................ 1 B. Bankruptcy ........................................................................................................... 2 C. California Section 17200 Litigation .................................................................... 2 D. Consumer Fraud / Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices Laws ................. 3 E. Billing Practices / Fees and Charges (Mortgage Loan Servicing) ................... 5 F. Billing Practices / Fees and Charges (Telecom, Consumer Services) ............ 5 G. Electronic Information Security .......................................................................... 6 H. Fair Credit Reporting Act .................................................................................... 6 I. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act/Telephone Consumer Protection Act ...... 7 J. Fair Lending / Disparate Impact Litigation ........................................................ 8 K. Foreclosure .......................................................................................................... 8 L. HAMP Modification Litigation ............................................................................. 9 M. Insurance ............................................................................................................ 12 N. Miscellaneous Servicing ................................................................................... 12 O.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 United States District Court District of Massachusetts
    Case 1:16-cv-10482-ADB Document 70 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS GERARD M. PENNEY and * DONNA PENNEY, * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * Civil Action No. 16-cv-10482-ADB * DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST * COMPANY, et al., * * Defendants. * * MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BURROUGHS, D.J. Plaintiffs Gerard M. Penney and Donna Penney initiated this lawsuit against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee of the Soundview Home Loan Trust 2005-OPT3 (“Deutsche Bank”) and Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (“Ocwen”) to stop a foreclosure on their home. On March 15, 2017, the Court dismissed all of the Plaintiffs’ claims in the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 21], except for the request in Count I for a declaratory judgment that the mortgage at issue is unenforceable against Donna and therefore a foreclosure cannot proceed. [ECF No. 39]. Deutsche Bank then filed counterclaims for fraud (Count I against Gerard), negligent misrepresentation (Count II against Donna), equitable subrogation (Count III against the Plaintiffs), and declaratory judgment (Count IV against the Plaintiffs). [ECF No. 55]. Currently pending before the Court are Ocwen’s motion for summary judgment on Count I of the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 57], and Deutsche Bank’s motion for partial summary judgment on Counts III and IV of the counterclaims [ECF No. 60].1 For the reasons stated below, 1 Deutsche Bank also joins Ocwen’s motion for summary judgment. [ECF Nos. 63, 64]. 1 Case 1:16-cv-10482-ADB Document 70 Filed 08/01/18 Page 2 of 19 Ocwen’s motion is DENIED and Deutsche Bank’s motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
    [Show full text]
  • Randall Complaint
    Vito Torchia, Jr. (SBN244687) 1 [email protected] BROOKSTONE LAW, PC 2 18831 Von Karman Ave., Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92612 3 Telephone: (800) 946-8655 Facsimile: (866) 257-6172 4 E-mail: [email protected] 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 9 BC526888 10 DOUGLAS RANDALL, an individual; Case No.: LOLITA RANDALL, an individual; MARK 11 COMPLAINT FOR: GENNARO, an individual; MANUEL 12 SEDILLOS, an individual; MICHELLE 1. INTENTIONAL PLACEMENT OF ROGERS, an individual; ANTONIO BORROWERS INTO DANGEROUS LOANS 13 HERNANDEZ, an individual; DONNA THEY COULD NOT AFFORD THROUGH COORDINATED DECEPTION, IN THE NAME 14 HERNANDEZ, an individual; LAURO OF MAXIMIZING LOAN VOLUME AND THUS ROBERTO, an individual; AMALIA PROFIT 15 ROBERTO, an individual; VINCENT COUNTl-FRAUDULENTCONCEALMENT LOMBARDO, an individual; LORRAINE 16 LOMBARDO, an individual; SHIRLEY COUNT 2- INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION 17 COFFEY, an individual; DINA GARAY, an individual; JAMES FORTIER, an COUNT 3- NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 18 individual; ANGEL DIAZ, an individual; COUNT 4- NEGLIGENCE ALICE SHIOTSUGU, an individual; 19 VICENTE PINEDA, an individual; JERRY COUNT 5- UNFAIR, UNLAWFUL, AND FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES 20 ROGGE, an individual; MICHAEL (VIOLATION OF CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE SHAFFER, an individual; VICTORIA §17200) 21 ARCADI, an individual; DEBORAH 2; INDIVIDUAL APPRAISAL INFLATION BECKER, an individual; YOUSEF 22 LAZARIAN, an individual; LINAT COUNT 6- INTENTIONAL 23 LAZARIAN, an individual; DIANA MISREPRESENTATION BOGDEN, an individual; SHILA COUNT 7-NEGLIGENTMISREPRESENTATION 24 ARDALAN, an individual; GEORGE COUNT 8- NEGLIGENCE 25 CHRIPCZUK, an individual; ROBERT ORNELAS, an individual; LICET COUNT 9- UNFAIR, UNLAWFUL, AND FRAUDULENT BUSINESS PRACTICES ORNELAS, an individual; AMIE GA YE, an 26 (VIOLATION OF CAL.
    [Show full text]
  • The Causes of Fraud in Financial Crises: Evidence from the Mortgage-Backed Securities Industry
    IRLE IRLE WORKING PAPER #122-15 October 2015 The Causes of Fraud in Financial Crises: Evidence from the Mortgage-Backed Securities Industry Neil Fligstein and Alexander Roehrkasse Cite as: Neil Fligstein and Alexander Roehrkasse (2015). “The Causes of Fraud in Financial Crises: Evidence from the Mortgage-Backed Securities Industry”. IRLE Working Paper No. 122-15. http://irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers/122-15.pdf irle.berkeley.edu/workingpapers FRAUD IN FINANCIAL CRISES The Causes of Fraud in Financial Crises: Evidence from the Mortgage-Backed Securities Industry* Neil Fligstein Alexander Roehrkasse University of California–Berkeley Key words: white-collar crime; finance; organizations; markets. * Corresponding author: Neil Fligstein, Department of Sociology, 410 Barrows Hall, University of California– Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720-1980. Email: [email protected]. We thank Ogi Radic for excellent research assistance, and Diane Vaughan, Cornelia Woll, and participants of conferences and workshops at Yale Law School, Sciences Po, the German Historical Society, and the University of California–Berkeley for helpful comments. Roehrkasse acknowledges support by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. DGE 1106400. All remaining errors are our own. FRAUD IN FINANCIAL CRISES ABSTRACT The financial crisis of 2007-2009 was marked by widespread fraud in the mortgage securitization industry. Most of the largest mortgage originators and mortgage-backed securities issuers and underwriters have been implicated in regulatory settlements, and many have paid multibillion-dollar penalties. This paper seeks to explain why this behavior became so pervasive. We evaluate predominant theories of white-collar crime, finding that those emphasizing deregulation or technical opacity identify only necessary, not sufficient conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Rescindedocc Bulletin
    OCC Bulletin 2009-7 Page 1 of 2 OCC 2009-7 RESCINDEDOCC BULLETIN Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks Final Rule for Home Ownership and Equity Subject: Truth in Lending Act Description: Protection Act Amendments Date: February 19, 2009 TO: Chief Executive Officers and Compliance Officers of All National Banks and National Bank Operating Subsidiaries, Department and Division Heads, and All Examining Personnel The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System published in the July 30, 2008, Federal Register, amendments to Regulation Z under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA). The final rule is intended to protect consumers from unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices in mortgage lending and to restrict certain mortgage practices. Higher-Priced Mortgage Loans1 The four key protections of the newly defined category of “higher-priced mortgage loans” for loans secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling will Prohibit a lender from making a loan without regard to the borrower’s ability to repay the loan from income and assets other than the home’s value; Require creditors to verify the income and assets they rely upon to determine repayment ability; Ban any prepayment penalties if the payment can change in the initial four years and, for other higher-priced mortgages, restrict the prepayment penalty period to no more than two years; and Require creditors to establish escrow accounts for property taxes and homeowner’s insurance for first-lien higher-priced mortgage loans. All Loans Secured by a Consumer’s Principal Dwelling In addition, the rules adopt the following protections for all loans secured by a consumer’s principal dwelling though it may not be classified as a higher-priced mortgage: OCC Bulletin 2009-7 Page 2 of 2 Creditors and mortgage brokers are prohibited from coercing a real estate appraiser to misstate a home’s value.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal County Journal Erie
    Erie County Legal November 8, 2013 Journal Vol. 96 No. 45 USPS 178-360 96 ERIE - 1 - Erie County Legal Journal Reporting Decisions of the Courts of Erie County The Sixth Judicial District of Pennsylvania Managing Editor: Heidi M. Weismiller PLEASE NOTE: NOTICES MUST BE RECEIVED AT THE ERIE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION OFFICE BY 3:00 P.M. THE FRIDAY PRECEDING THE DATE OF PUBLICATION. All legal notices must be submitted in typewritten form and are published exactly as submitted by the advertiser. The Erie County Bar Association will not assume any responsibility to edit, make spelling corrections, eliminate errors in grammar or make any changes in content. The Erie County Legal Journal makes no representation as to the quality of services offered by an advertiser in this publication. Advertisements in the Erie County Legal Journal do not constitute endorsements by the Erie County Bar Association of the parties placing the advertisements or of any product or service being advertised. INDEX NOTICE TO THE PROFESSION ................................................................... 4 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Certifi cate of Authority Notice ........................................................................ 5 Change of Name Notice .................................................................................. 5 Dissolution Notices .......................................................................................... 5 Incorporation Notices ....................................................................................... 5 Legal Notice
    [Show full text]
  • Unreported Decisions
    Unreported Decisions Quick Links Top of page A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Z Cases are listed alphabetically by first named party. Documents are in PDF format. 2005 Fact Book of Credit-Related Insurance (Apr. 2005) ACORN v. Finance Comm’n of Texas (Tex. Dist. Ct. Apr. 29, 2006) Acree v. General Motors Acceptance (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 30, 1996) Advance America, Cash Advance Ctrs. of Florida, Inc. v. The Consolidated City of Jacksonville, Florida (Fla. Cir. Ct. June 1, 2005) Adamson v. ADT Security Services (Cal. Dist. Ct. Apr. 7, 2014) In re Ameriquest Mortgage Co./Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1715, Lead Case No. 05-cv-07097 Stipulation for Standstill (N.D. Ill. Feb. 21, 2006) Memorandum Opinion and Order re Temporary Relief (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2006) Stipulation re Form of Notice and Order Thereon (N.D. Ill. June 12, 2006) Complaint for Injunctive Relief (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 21, 2006) Permanent Injunction and Final Judgment (Cal. Super. Ct. Mar. 31, 2006) Alabama v. PHH Mortg. Corp. (D.D.C. 2018) (consent judgment) (servicing standards) Alexander Law Firm P.C. Letter (Apr. 2, 2003) American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida (Cal. Dep’t of Ins. May 12, 2015) American Express Centurion Bank v. John LaRose (Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 3, 2014) Amey v. Southernland Home Improvement Co. (N.D. Ga. Nov. 17, 1997) Ammex v. Jennifer Granholm, Michigan Attorney General (Minn. Dist. Ct. July 18, 2001 ) Anderson v.
    [Show full text]
  • 2012 WL 12109913 (NM) (Appellate Brief) Supreme Court of New Mexico
    THE BANK OF NEW YORK as Trustees for Popular..., 2012 WL 12109913... 2012 WL 12109913 (N.M.) (Appellate Brief) Supreme Court of New Mexico. THE BANK OF NEW YORK as Trustees for Popular Financial Services Mortgage/Pass Through Certificate Series #2006-D, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Joseph A. ROMERO and Mary Romero a/k/a Mary O. Romero a/k/a Maria Romero, Defendants-Appellants. No. 33,224. February 3, 2012. On Writ of Certiorari from the New Mexico Court of Appeals Brief of Amicus Curiae Attorney General of New Mexico Gary K. King, New Mexico Attorney General, Joel Cruz-Esparza, Assistant Attorney General, Karen Meyers, Assistant Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division, Office of New Mexico Attorney General, Gary K. King, 408 Galisteo Street, Santa Fe, NM 87501, (505) 827-6000, (505) 827-5826 (Fax). *i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTEREST OF AMICUS ........................................................................................................................... 1 2. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................................................... 4 3. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................... 5 4. STANDARD OF REVIEW ........................................................................................................................ 8 5. ARGUMENTS I. THERE IS GUIDANCE IN NEW MEXICO ON THE PROPER REASONABLE AND NET 8 TANGIBLE STANDARD IN HOME LOAN TRANSACTIONS ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Under Scrutiny, Ameriquest Details Procedures
    EBSCOhost http://web.ebscohost.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/ehost/delivery?hid=18&sid=... Record: 1 Title: Under Scrutiny, Ameriquest Details Procedures. (cover story) Authors: Bergquist, Erick Source: American Banker; 6/30/2005, Vol. 170 Issue 125, p1-11, 3p, 3 Color Photographs, 1 Black and White Photograph, 2 Graphs Document Type: Article Subject Terms: *MORTGAGE brokers *FINANCIAL services industry *MORTGAGE loans *STRATEGIC planning *GOVERNMENT regulation Geographic Terms: CALIFORNIA UNITED States Company/Entity: AMERIQUEST Capital Corp. NAICS/Industry Codes: NAICS/Industry Codes 522291 Consumer Lending 522292 Real Estate Credit 522310 Mortgage and Nonmortgage Loan Brokers People: ARNALL, Roland MITAL, Aseem Abstract: Offers a look at Ameriquest Capital Corp., a leading subprime mortgage lender in the U.S., based in California. Report that the company is owned by its only shareholder, Roland Arnall; Importance of advertising in Ameriquest's business strategy; Report that regulators are investigating Ameriquest's retail lending practices; Details of corporate strategy as described by Ameriquest executives; Comments of Aseem Mital, CEO of the umbrella group over Ameriquest's mortgage unit, on regulatory attention given to the company's activities. Full Text Word Count: 3071 ISSN: 0002-7561 Accession Number: 17495771 Database: Business Source Premier Section: Mortgages Under Scrutiny, Ameriquest Details Procedures Despite its ubiquitous brand -- advertised everywhere from major league ballparks to this summer's Rolling Stones tour -- and its phenomenal growth since 2002, little is known about the inner workings of Ameriquest Capital Corp. The nation's top subprime mortgage lender operates out of a 12-story high-rise in southern California, barely distinguishable from the others that dot Orange County's maze of freeways.
    [Show full text]
  • FHFA V JP Morgan Complaint.Pdf
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, AS CONSERVATOR FOR THE FEDERAL ___ CIV. ___ (___) NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION AND THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, COMPLAINT Plaintiff, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -against- JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; J.P. MORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION CORPORATION; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC (f/k/a J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES INC.); J.P. MORGAN ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION I; EMC MORTGAGE LLC (f/k/a EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION); BEAR STEARNS & CO., INC.; STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II INC.; BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES I LLC; WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION; WAMU CAPITAL CORPORATION; WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORPORATION; LONG BEACH SECURITIES CORPORATION; CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS, INC.; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.; RBS SECURITIES, INC.; DAVID M. DUZYK; LOUIS SCHIOPPO, JR.; CHRISTINE E. COLE; EDWIN F. MCMICHAEL; WILLIAM A. KING; BRIAN BERNARD; MATTHEW E. PERKINS; JOSEPH T. JURKOWSKI, JR.; SAMUEL L. MOLINARO, JR.; THOMAS F. MARANO; KIM LUTTHANS; KATHERINE GARNIEWSKI; JEFFREY MAYER; JEFFREY L. VERSCHLEISER; MICHAEL B. NIERENBERG; RICHARD CAREAGA; DAVID BECK; DIANE NOVAK; THOMAS GREEN; ROLLAND JURGENS; THOMAS G. LEHMANN; STEPHEN FORTUNATO; DONALD WILHELM; MICHAEL J. KULA; CRAIG S. DAVIS; MARC K. MALONE; MICHAEL L. PARKER; MEGAN M. DAVIDSON; DAVID H. ZIELKE; THOMAS W. CASEY; JOHN F. ROBINSON; KEITH JOHNSON; SUZANNE KRAHLING; LARRY BREITBARTH; MARANGAL I. DOMINGO; TROY A. GOTSCHALL; ART DEN HEYER;
    [Show full text]
  • Q:\1-06-Cv-828 Order on Summary Judgment Motions.Wpd
    Case 1:06-cv-00828-WAM Doc #31 Filed 10/09/07 Page 1 of 14 Page ID#<pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION PATRICK J. VERMURLEN and SHERRIE R. VERMURLEN, Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:06-cv-828 v. Hon. Wendell A. Miles AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY, AMC MORTGAGE SERVICES, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, and AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC. Defendants. / OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs brought this action in the Ottawa County Circuit Court. Defendants removed the case to this court on November 22, 2006. Presently before the court are Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants (docket #14), and by Plaintiffs (docket #21). For the reasons that follow, the court denies Plaintiffs’ motion, grants Defendants summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim under the Truth in Lending Act; dismisses Plaintiffs’ claim under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL § 445.903(o); and remands the case to the Ottawa County Circuit Court. Background In 2004, Ameriquest contacted Plaintiffs regarding refinancing their home, located in Holland, Michigan. Ameriquest appraised Plaintiffs’ residential property at $161,000. On March 29, 2004, Plaintiffs and Ameriquest Mortgage Company (Ameriquest) entered into a loan Case 1:06-cv-00828-WAM Doc #31 Filed 10/09/07 Page 2 of 14 Page ID#<pageID> agreement secured by Plaintiffs’ property. The transaction was the refinancing of an existing mortgage loan held by Ameriquest. Ameriquest did not provide Plaintiffs with copies of the loan documents prior to closing, which was held at the Plaintiffs’ home. The matter was handled by a notary public and no representative of Ameriquest was present.
    [Show full text]